This is the most entertainment I’ve ever gotten out of Six Flags.
I have no doubt he will tell us what he “always knew” about Lin Wood’s incompetence, helpfully undermining any claim he makes at trial that he was relying upon advice of counsel when pursuing the conspiracy.
It will be copy/paste all his comments about Bill Barr and various generals he’s fired.
Examples, " Former President Donald Trump called Bill Barr a “lazy” and “disgruntled former employee” after the former attorney general commented on the indictment of his former boss."
“Sloppy Bill Barr was a weak and ineffective Attorney General who was fired (he didn’t quit!), and now he’s nothing more than a disgruntled former ‘employee.’ Barr was a ‘Bushie’ who was petrified of being Impeached, which the Dems were going to do until he changed course on the rigged election,”
One thing I’ve seen from him lately is stuff like “so and so did a great job and was very brave but then listened to bad advice and did the wrong thing.”
No doubt a projection of the “I was listening to the best lawyers, it’s not my fault” defense.
Despite the headline, I don’t see anything that indicates that he flipped or that he’s cooperating.
The source is the court filing where Willis indicates that she’s going to call him as a witness. Courts frequently subpoena witnesses that aren’t actively cooperating with them.
Are “cooperating witness” and “hostile witness” just informal descriptions, or do they have some formal significance? There’s a common trope in courtroom dramas “your honor, permission to treat the witness as hostile”, so I assume the latter. So would court filings indicate whether an intended witness is cooperating or hostile?
AIUI, IANAL, the difference is that certain rules of evidence are relaxed for hostile witnesses. For instance, a lawyer may ask leading questions.
Whatever editor didn’t headline that article “Six Flags Over Georgia Case” should be fired.
That ship has already sailed as Trump made it clear that it was his decision. Dude cannot pass up any opportunity to let us know he is in charge.
He’s now denying it; says he’s surprised his name is on the prosecution’s witness list:
I’d guess that, under interrogation, he made certain statements on the record that they’d like to ask him about again, in front of a jury. Presumably, he said incriminating or damaging things that he didn’t hold to be so.
One of the less desirable questions to be asked while on the stand:
Were you lying under oath then, or are you lying under oath now?
I can hardly wait.
Trump has lost his lead lawyer in the Georgia case, reportedly because of clashes with Epstheyn and refusal to push the standard Trump political line that the election was stolen, according to a Rolling Stone article. (Doesn’t appear to be paywalled.)
Hopefully the lawyer got a hefty retainer paid up front.
Rolling Stone has apparently laid off all its copy editors. It referred to Trump lawyer Boris Epshteyn as Epstheyn on most, but not all, occasions in that article.
For this former editor, the inconsistency is as annoying as the error.
Has anyone ever answered that with “This sentence that I’m speaking right now to you is a lie”?
In case people are confused, Trump and Findling parted ways a month ago, this isn’t new.
I suspect that these lawyers are getting paid. I’m reading articles about Trump’s PACs shelling out millions to pay his legal fees. So, while Trump might be a cheapskate grifter, the money’s not coming out of his pockets.
That would crash the legal system and it would need a reboot, don’t let the Sovereign Citizens know about it.
Make Attorneys Go Away!
Of course for trump it seems to stand more for
My Attorneys Going Away